19 Mar 2014

Logo 1400
Brodie, Amy and Lindsay wrap up Indian Wells including covering some of the most intriguing story lines including Federer, Pennetta, Cibulkova, Dolgopolov and Djokovic’s current form. We finish the pod by taking a peak at the Miami draw and point out what we’ll be looking for over the next week and a half.

Remember to subscribe to us on iTunes, Stitcher or use this feed to subscribe to us on an Android device or any other feed aggregator. If you like it, give us a rating and even a review and we will love you forever. Also, check out the always great The Changeover and @linzsports and @AmyFetherolf on Twitter.

5 Mar 2014

Logo 1400
Brodie, Lindsay and Amy take some time to catch up on some of the biggest stories from the past couple of weeks including Federer, Baby Federer, and yes, Halep. They then poke around both ATP and WTA Indian Wells draws half by half to highlight some of exciting, potential matches.

Remember to subscribe to us on iTunes, Stitcher or use this feed to subscribe to us on an Android device or any other feed aggregator. If you like it, give us a rating and even a review and we will love you forever. Also, check out the always great The Changeover and @linzsports and @AmyFetherolf on Twitter.

18 Feb 2014

Every Monday… or Tuesday… I take some of the best questions and give some answers in hope of creating further discussion. If you would like to send in a question, Tweet me (@MindTheRacket) or e-mail me at brodie@mindtheracket.

I think Li Na may end up being a bigger favourite for Roland Garros than we put her out to be. Serena will be there, of course, and as will Sharapova, but clay is not either player’s best surface, and if Li Na is seeded second, she’ll have an excellent chance of never having to play either of them, or at the very least, not having to play Serena before the final. The ball slows down and sits up for her, which she loves, and will give her plenty of time to continue killing that excellent backhand of hers.

She’s never going to win Wimbledon, where she has to spend far too much time digging things out to be able to get on top of the ball and rallies. The US Open? Who knows. Again, if she is seeded in one of the top two places come August, she might be able to get Serena and Azarenka to land in the same half of the draw, which is a huge coup for her. In the meantime, keep a close eye on her draw for Roland Garros.

Who do you think is the real @PseudoFed? (My guess is someone in Andy Murray’s camp, but it sure seems to be someone in the UK.)
Amy C.

Ha, great question! It’s certainly someone in the UK, as all of the times he has seen Fed for “the courtside tweetings”, they’ve been UK events (he also uses English turns of phrases, etc.)

I don’t hear everything, but am decently connected, and have never heard any whispers of him being someone actually involved with a player – my assumption is that he’s just a fan that’s good at what he does. He more or less follows the 3 rules of “winning at the internet”, 1) Post good, original content, 2) Post regularly and at peak times, 3) Interact with your audience. The third one is what really puts the cherry on the cake, with his #humble hashtag, reference to himself as “Me”, and referring to everyone as “fan”. Who doesn’t love getting a “thank you Amy fan”? Some of his blog posts have been absolutely hysterical, as well. @PseudoFed is the Man, and we could all learn at thing or two from him. #humble

I actually don’t think Simona getting a coach makes a massive difference in how she’ll play. Her instincts on court go above and beyond – they’re not something you can teach, at least not in a short period of time. I think getting Wim helps her in a couple of ways. It gets her another pair of eyeballs to help her with technical things in practice – “you’re opening up too quickly on the backhand”, these sorts of things. All humans need this to keep from developing bad habits. From what I’ve ever seen of him, he seems like a pretty cool headed guy, too, which should fit well with Simona. Sometimes, like a boxer, it’s just good for a player to have someone in their box urging them onward.

Good question. The nice thing about Stan’s slam win was that it wasn’t particularly out of nowhere. As tennis fans, we hate irregular results, and Stan was on fire last year, nearly beating Djokovic at the 2013 Australian Open, so when he did it this year, it wasn’t a huge surprise.

It’s certainly a difficult task to jump from, say, number 18 up to the top 8, or in this case the top 5, but if I had to put my money on a player making a solid jump up the rankings, I’d probably go with Kei Nishikori. It feels like Kei has been around forever, but 24 is no longer that old on the tour, and he continues to improve, slowly but surely. Ranked number 15 right now, he has players like Haas, Isner and Fognini above him – players he could certainly pass. Kei is known for his speed and defence, but the more I see of him, the more I love seeing his pure shot making ability. He likes to hit into space and open things up, and is a wildly different player than someone like David Ferrer, for example. That’s not to say that he’ll go on to win a slam next year, or necessarily ever, but I could see him finishing in the top 10 this year, and making a push for the WTFs next year.

8 Feb 2014

Logo 1400
Brodie and Lindsay return after a brief hiatus to share some thoughts on the Australian Open, Federer’s decision to play Davis Cup, the United States’ Davis Cup woes and a whole ton more on this week’s episode of the Changeover podcast.

Remember to subscribe to us on iTunes, Stitcher or use this feed to subscribe to us on an Android device or any other feed aggregator. If you like it, give us a rating and even a review and we will love you forever. Also, check out the always great The Changeover and all of its lovely members: @linzsports, @juanjosetennis and @AmyFetherolf .

27 Jan 2014

Every Monday I take some of the best questions and give some answers in hope of creating further discussion. If you would like to send in a question, Tweet me (@MindTheRacket) or e-mail me at brodie@mindtheracket.

A big thanks to everyone for all of the great questions this week, and apologies if I didn’t get to yours. Great questions, as always.

I have to be honest and say that Twitter and presumably most people’s reaction to the final was quite well measured, considering the freak outs that we often get in sports related #fauxoutrage. This was Stan’s title, but the effect the injury had on that specific match can’t be ignored. (It can also be noted that Wawrinka only played six matches after Pospisil withdrew.)

What Stan achieved was incredible, and simply put, no one can take that away from him now. In the long term, there won’t be any blight attached to this win – these things tend to fade over time. In the short term? It certainly needs to be acknowledged. Which brings me to…

It’s important to acknowledge Rafa’s injury, because Stan only really needed to win a set and a half against a fully functioning Rafa. He even managed to choke a set away – something he fully admitted to. This doesn’t really matter for the past, but the future. Wawrinka is far from the favourite to win Roland Garros suddenly. That said, if he sticks in the top 4 ranking spots until RG he could find himself with an incredibly friendly draw. In theory, he will still have to go through Nadal and Djokovic, the top two players in the world, but this wouldn’t be until the semis and final. This ups the chance of one of those players losing in the quarters or semis, and giving Stan a player to pick off in the next round. Stanimal the Manimal has always had great success on clay, too, as it gives him bonus time to really load up the backhand. The high ranking will see him seeded well in other tournaments as well. I’m not sure if Stan will win another slam, but he could be a threat to sneak a Masters title this year.
Read the rest of this entry »

25 Jan 2014

Roger Federer Australian Open Nadal

Tennis hasn’t always been played this way.

The history of the sport of tennis is typically divided into two eras with the dawn of “The Open Era”, a sort of Anno Domini that began when Roland Garros became the first tournament to open its doors to professionals in 1968. However, the game that was played in 1968 hardly resembles the game that is played today.

We all know that the change from wooden racquets to modern technology in the 1980s had an incredible impact on the sport – perhaps an impact leading to the most significant change of any widely played modern sport. It wasn’t until the early 2000s that the ancient method of serving and volleying, a tactic that had brought so many so much success, was beginning to be viewed as an outdated strategy to win matches at the highest level of the sport.

This wasn’t just down to the new racquet technology. Yes, players were getting better at dismantling and expecting serving and volleying when returning, such as Marat Safin’s rout of Pete Sampras in the 2000 US Open final. But they were also starting to find more success by staying at the back of the court when serving. This has little to do with a purposeful tactical shift and everything to do with the increased strength, speed and stamina of players in the modern sporting age. Simply put, tennis players weren’t just great tennis players anymore – they were also elite athletes.

Perhaps the best example comes from Andre Agassi’s book “Open”, where he recounts his wild drop in ranking and success. Agassi wasn’t playing well, but above all else, wasn’t fit enough. His rise from the embers of the Challenger circuit were widely down to the success of his trainer Gil Reyes who had Agassi completing vigourous workouts specifically designed for tennis players, eating properly, and hydrating properly on court with something that Agassi affectionately called “Gil Juice”.

Today, the practices that Reyes employed are a given for all players (and still employed with the Adidas team). However, at the time, they were seen as progressive and even revolutionary. That was less than 20 years ago.

Today there can be no doubt that the top tennis players are among the upper tiers of the world’s best athletes.

In 2013, Roger Federer had his worst year since 2002. Was it the back? Was it the racquet? Could he find a way to play more aggressively? Could he improve his serve? People wanted answers. After his defeat of Andy Murray at this year’s 2014 Australian Open, the narrative was simple – the aggressive play we come to expect from Federer was back. Federer was back to his old self. Before his semifinal match against Nadal, commentator Nick Lester, while also stating Nadal’s blister and perceived lack of freshness, went as far to say “the way Federer has played here… I think he has a real shot here. If I was putting my money down, I’d be looking at Federer in 3 of 4 sets.” Federer was then dismissed with ease as Nadal won in straight sets.

We know that sports science has pushed the athletic heights of tennis into the stratosphere. Despite all of this, there has been little talk about perhaps the most obvious and least sexy topics when it comes to Federer: he’s getting older. So what can we learn from other major sports when it comes to aging and decline?
Read the rest of this entry »

20 Jan 2014

Every Monday I take some of the best questions and give some answers in hope of creating further discussion. If you would like to send in a question, Tweet me (@MindTheRacket) or e-mail me at brodie@mindtheracket. Thanks, everyone.

More and more, I’m starting to find the idea of “hype” an incredibly fascinating thing. It certainly pops up in all sports, but in an individual sport like tennis, it’s always an unavoidable topic when talking about young players, or groups of players.

What is “hype”, anyway? To start, our idea of how much a player has been hyped is our own personal experience – there is no master “Hype Truth” out there. So what is it?

1) The weight of other voices (or lack there of) telling us how good or bad a player is

2) Our idea of whether or not that hype is either warranted or over done according to our own ideas of a) how much any one player should be talked about and b) our own projection of how good their talent level is

3) Whether or not we believe the hype is describing the player’s current form, or their potential in the future

Sloane Stephens has become one of the most interesting cases of being fed through The Hype Machine. If you live in the United States or Canada and watch ESPN, you’ve had her talked about at you endlessly, yet you might not think the talent or the results quite match up. On the other hand, if you don’t watch ESPN (I don’t), and get most of your tennis commentary through individual matches, online articles, and your own personalized Twitter feed (I fall into this category), Sloane Stephens has barely been a topic of discussion. Maybe it’s because her break through came a year ago, maybe it’s because people would much rather debate the ceiling of Bouchard, I’m not sure. Personally, I view Stephens as nearly underrated in my own personal circle. She hasn’t put it all together, but 1) I don’t see a ton of people talking about her, 2) I certainly think she deserves to be talked about a great deal and 3) believe that she isn’t fantastic right now, but will be in the future.

If you follow the same checklist for Simona Halep, you will almost certainly come up with a different answer. I have even had Romanians say that they’re excited that she will make the top 10 in hopes that she will get more attention back home. To be honest, she hasn’t played that many big matches, either. And so while it frustrates me that people say “she hasn’t done anything in the slams”, they might just be saying “I haven’t really seen her play much.” So unless you follow only five people on Twitter and one of them is me, you almost certainly don’t think Halep has gotten much hype. (I’m here for you, girl.)

Winning solves all problems in sports, ultimately. I picked Halep to qualify for the YEC this year, and she has a solid shot at making the semifinals in Melbourne. She’ll finish out the week in the top 10. Outside of semifinal points in Rome, most of her points come post Wimbledon, and the points that she should rank up over the clay season and at Roland Garros should see her staying in the top 10 well into the summer. Eventually everyone will have to reckon with Simona, give it time.
Read the rest of this entry »

19 Jan 2014

Logo 1400
Brodie and Juan Jose discuss the stand outs of the opening week or so of the Australian Open, including Ivanovic, Muguruza, Dimitrov, Bautista-Agut and many more. They also introduce a brand new segment, and talk about some of the more interesting things players had to say this week.

Remember to subscribe to us on iTunes, Stitcher or use this feed to subscribe to us on an Android device or any other feed aggregator. If you like it, give us a rating and even a review and we will love you forever. Also, check out the always great The Changeover and all of its lovely members: @linzsports, @juanjo_sports and @AmyFetherolf .

18 Jan 2014

Federer Old

The ATP is currently enjoying a period of previously unforeseeable success. From the emergence of the greatest player in its history in Roger Federer, to one of the greatest rivalries in sport with Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic’s incredible success and Andy Murray’s snapping of the British drought, things are looking pretty good for the ATP at the moment.

At the same time, those in the tennis community have pondered the lack of emergence of young talent to crack the top 30. This excellent piece from The Changeover looks at just how the average of the of the Top 50 has risen in recent years.

While we can discuss the lack of talent of younger players, we also need to discuss the age and continuity of the elite (using the top 16 and 32 as bench marks). It’s easy to note that the “Big 4″ have been around and winning for years, but names like Tsonga, Wawrinka, and Berdych have been around a considerable time as well, and aren’t getting younger. Eventually, the level of these players will drop, and they will retire – but someone is going to have to take their place. Is this simply a bias of recent memory, or is this continuity of elite players a surprising new trend in the history of the ATP? Let’s take a look at some of the numbers.

The following chart looks at the continuity of the top 16 and 32 ranked players on the ATP entering the Australian Open. (The same is true for the WTA’s version of the chart – these are the players that should have been seeded, not those who necessarily were, due to injuries/withdrawls.) In other words, how many players ranked in the top 16 and 32 in 2009 have found themselves ranked in a similar position 5 years down the line?
Read the rest of this entry »

13 Jan 2014

Every Monday I take some of the best questions and give some answers in hope of creating further discussion. If you would like to send in a question, Tweet me (@MindTheRacket) or e-mail me at brodie@mindtheracket. Thanks, everyone.

Which ATP & WTA player outside of the Top 10 would not surprise you if he/she won a major in 2014? Thanks, your website is great!
-Shola (@attheapollo)

An interesting question!

The ATP is certainly a very, very difficult guess – there’s literally zero evidence to suggest that this would happen this year. Quite honestly, there’s probably only two players outside of the top 10 with any chance of winning a slam (possibly with some help from injuries) – Milos Raonic and Jerzy Janowicz at somewhere like the US Open and Wimbledon respectively. Both players are slowly but surely improving over large sample sizes, and if either good get a very, very good draw and get hot, they would be the most likely.

The WTA is clearly much more open. Who might pull a Marion Bartoli in 2014? Sabine Lisicki at Wimbledon is the most obvious choice. Simona Halep isn’t a terrible bet for Roland Garros (if you win, you’re taking home some serious cash). And hey, one can never really count out Samantha Stosur. Outside of that – I don’t see a whole lot.

“Do you think Sorana Cirstea will break into the top 20 this year and what must she do to do so?”
- Aniek

Good question! Mwah. Quite honestly, if she’s playing well, she will cause Sorana all sorts of problems (assuming both of them get that far). If she does, she’ll get Jankovic in the fourth round and then Sharapova in the quarters. I certainly like her to make the fourth round, and that would be a good result for her. I’ll say she’ll make the quarters, though, as the push to qualify for the YEC begins.

Amazingly, Sorana Cirstea has never been a top 20 player. Ever. She was somewhere in the 25-30 range before Toronto last year, and a huge run to the final only managed to land her at 21. She’s jumped between 21 and 22 ever since. Ultimately, this is just a number, but players (and apparently fans like me) do care about these things, and it’s a nice feather for the hat.

One can only wonder with Sori. She certainly put in a ton of work with Gil Reyes and the Adidas team over the break once again, yet had two pretty shocking losses to start the year. I think there are several things powerful players on the outside looking in can do, and I’ll have a post on how power has changed in the WTA eventually. However, one thing that might make a huge difference for Sorana is almost too obvious – first serve percentage. Cirstea and players like her have no problem dominating and winning points in which they get ahead in a rally early, and first serve percentage can make all of the difference for her. She plays (and wins) a ton of three set matches, and in the matches she wins, her first serve percentage is almost always down in the set that she lost. She served at 60% or better for her entire Toronto run. That’s not an accident.

I am going to give a crappy answer to this question – it is certainly tough to tell. Years ago, Bouchard looked like a player who would eventually be overwhelmed by the big hitters of the WTA. Quite frankly, she looked all too Canadian. A good mover, solid, repetitive strokes, but struggling for a real punch.

Anyone who has watched Bouchard lately knows that this certainly isn’t a problem now. 17 and 18 year olds are taking more and more time (on both tours) to develop simply because the game has gotten so much better and requires incredible amounts of both strength and stamina – a good feel for the ball only gets you so far. In other words, the very young players that we’re beginning to see, Vekic, Konjuh, Barty etc. are likely to grow leaps and bounds over the coming years. It’s the easy choice, but Donna Vekic certainly is a player to watch out for. Being so tall and already naturally powerful, she won’t have to wildly adjust her game as she grows and gets stronger.

Probably not, no. I once tried to in this piece. I feel a bit bad for Petra. I’ve sat at tables with her during WTA All Access Hours (including her first ever), and she’s a sweet, positive girl who can’t help but grin at some of the littlest things. She has incredible power – we’ve all seen her hit Maria Sharapova off a tennis court like most of us swat away a fly. However, she struggles with asthma and extreme heat at times and is far from a natural mover. When she gets pushed around early in points, she can go off the boil very quickly (see the New Haven final loss to Halep last year). Those that can do that – take advantage of Petra’s second serve, serve big and push her early in a point (see Cirstea in Toronto last year) can find real success against Kvitova and force her into errors. It’s not about the points that Kvitova will win with her power, it’s about how the points she will lose do to her poor movement.

The Changeover Podcast:

Episode #56 – Indian Wells Wrap